Jan Engelhardt wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
I had a bunch of similar
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
I had a bunch of similar
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >These casts can eliminate "return value unused" warnings.
>
> But only when functions are tagged __must_check, and sprintf is not.
> cmpxchg is one where (void) is 'needed', __as I wrote__ in a cxgb3
> comment.
>
gcc requires functions to be
On Dec 21 2006 15:40, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:29 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Dec 21 2006 14:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>> >On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 21:52 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/30/208
>> >@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ static int
On Dec 21 2006 14:53, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 21:52 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/30/208
>
>@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_
> battery->init_state = 1;
> }
>
>- (void)sprintf(dir_name,
On Dec 20 2006 17:42, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> Bearing in mind that some casts may have been put in when struct
> members had other values, may be needed on some hardware but not
> others, etc. Cleanups are good, but may not be as obvious as they
> appear.
>
> Not that there's a lack of places to
On Dec 20 2006 17:42, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Bearing in mind that some casts may have been put in when struct
members had other values, may be needed on some hardware but not
others, etc. Cleanups are good, but may not be as obvious as they
appear.
Not that there's a lack of places to remove
On Dec 21 2006 14:53, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 21:52 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/30/208
@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_
battery-init_state = 1;
}
- (void)sprintf(dir_name,
On Dec 21 2006 15:40, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:29 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 21 2006 14:53, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 21:52 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/30/208
@@ -1302,7 +1302,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
These casts can eliminate return value unused warnings.
But only when functions are tagged __must_check, and sprintf is not.
cmpxchg is one where (void) is 'needed', __as I wrote__ in a cxgb3
comment.
gcc requires functions to be declared with
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
I had a bunch of similar
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
I had a bunch of similar
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> (1) Catch casts where they are usually not necessary, because the value
> would be anyhow discarded
>
> (void)strcpy(b, a);
>
> (Does not apply to e.g. cmpxchg -- that's why I mentioned (b)!)
>
Actually, there's a number of people out
On Dec 19 2006 13:24, David Rientjes wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
>> > I don't know if anyone cares about them anymore, since I think gcc
>> > grew some smarts in the area recently, but there are a lot of lines of
>> > code matching "static int.*= *0;" and equivalents in
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > I don't know if anyone cares about them anymore, since I think gcc
> > grew some smarts in the area recently, but there are a lot of lines of
> > code matching "static int.*= *0;" and equivalents in the driver tree.
>
> I'd really like to see the C
>> > just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
>> > any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
>> > guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
>> > amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
>>
>> I had a bunch of similar
On 12/19/06, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:46:24AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
> any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
> guide. clearly, it's far from
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:46:24AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
> any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
> guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
> amusing.
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
rday
#!/bin/sh
DIR=${1-.}
echo -e "\n=
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
rday
#!/bin/sh
DIR=${1-.}
echo -e \n=
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:46:24AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra
On 12/19/06, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:46:24AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from
just for fun, i threw the following together to peruse the tree (or
any subdirectory) and look for stuff that violates the CodingStyle
guide. clearly, it's far from complete and very ad hoc, but it's
amusing. extra searches happily accepted.
I had a bunch of similar greps that I've
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I don't know if anyone cares about them anymore, since I think gcc
grew some smarts in the area recently, but there are a lot of lines of
code matching static int.*= *0; and equivalents in the driver tree.
I'd really like to see the C compiler
On Dec 19 2006 13:24, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I don't know if anyone cares about them anymore, since I think gcc
grew some smarts in the area recently, but there are a lot of lines of
code matching static int.*= *0; and equivalents in the driver
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
(1) Catch casts where they are usually not necessary, because the value
would be anyhow discarded
(void)strcpy(b, a);
(Does not apply to e.g. cmpxchg -- that's why I mentioned (b)!)
Actually, there's a number of people out there
26 matches
Mail list logo
